Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 30 March 1985)

In late March 1985, several letters published in New Zealand's press addressed the contentious issue of homosexual law reform, particularly focusing on the hypocrisy of opposition from certain Christian groups. C. Drace pointed out that contemporary laws regarding homosexual relations are remnants of antiquated Victorian legislation and lack relevance to modern moral or religious principles. Drace argued that love should embody compassion and understanding rather than hatred and bigotry, and asserted that no one has the authority to dictate rules for adult relationships, emphasising that abuse against children should be dealt with under the law. H. A. Chant echoed similar sentiments, criticising the Christian factions campaigning against homosexuality as hypocritical, blackmailers, and oppressors. Chant contrasted their behaviour with the teachings of Christ, suggesting that these individuals fail to recognise the suffering they inflict in their attempts to uphold their beliefs. Gregory Smith countered that not all members of the Anglican Church supported the Synod's 1979 decision to legalise homosexual acts. He insisted that churchgoers should rely on Biblical authority rather than the opinions expressed by ecclesiastical bodies, claiming that the scripture supports heterosexual relationships as being divinely intended. Ian Hood, writing from Blenheim, pointed out the irony in the call for a referendum on homosexual law reform, noting that the same individuals who are advocating for it had previously opposed a referendum on abortion, arguing that the government should govern without frequent public opinion polls. Hood also raised concerns about the petition being circulated, asserting that it contained invalid signatures from ineligible individuals and alleged that some were gathered through coercion in workplaces, thereby undermining its credibility in the eyes of Parliament. Overall, these letters reflect a broader societal debate regarding the legitimacy and morality of homosexual law reform, revealing deep divides in opinions that intertwine legal, moral, and religious considerations.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand